Subjects

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

"Of Which" Your Pension Hangs on Two Words?

OF WHICH…

Unlike an
affirmative defense one might expect to find in a regular criminal court
proceeding (that is, a defensive strategy that justifies accountability for
what appears an illegal act but denies culpability out of necessity or circumstances),
March 12th's oral “pension reform” arguments
before the Illinois Supreme Court by the Attorney General’s office proposed (1)
a return to an earlier court for re-consideration, (2) a request to disregard the
unique position of the Pension Protection Clause from other Contracts
Clauses, and (3) a promise that the Police Powers argument to lessen the
promised benefits of public employee retirees would never be used for other
situations or contracts made by the state – because, well, this time and this recession
was worse than expected?

It was not a
classic affirmative defense.It was a
request for a do-over, an argument on semantics, and a promise to be good from
now on.

A lion’s share
of the argument was identical to the position we have all been hearing from
“Pension Reform Architect” Representative Elaine Nekritz for the last few
months. "There is nothing absolute."Not free speech, not the right to bear
arms…nothing.

Nothing is
promised – even when we promise it?“There is no statute we make, that we cannot undo in a moment later,”
Rep. Nekritz said to me one day in her office.

Justice Thomas
was quick to point out today that this “dire emergency” was of the state’s own
making.So, what would prevent them from
doing the same thing again with another group, with another contract, or
another promise?

Counselor
Shapiro’s response was that such a need for Police Powers would never be
utilized willy-nilly.It was a serious
action forced by the deadly nature of a situation.One that was nurtured, developed and then
decried by its own maker?

And Justice
Thomas noted, the same office of Attorney General, which had called for an
expedited hearing of the issues, was now requesting a remanding of the case to
the earlier Circuit Court of Judge Belz to re-examine what exactly might
constitute acceptable restrictions on pension benefits now and in the
future.As Justice Thomas, asked Ms.
Shapiro, “why do you now want to have this case remanded to a previous court
when such a response (by the Supreme Court) would impede the speedy decision
you once wanted? "

Kwame Raoul and
Elaine Nekritz and others who slap dashed SB1 together based upon a bi-partisan
willingness to punish the promised needed some response other than an
acceptance of Cullerton’s agreement in trade-offs for an earlier Senate
Bill.Under Madigan’s tutelage, they
decided to “diminish and impair,” and hope that the courts would give them a
revised and re-edited pathway by which to divert more earned money from public
workers.Today, Justice Thomas, and Counselor
DeVito frowned upon such a crafty request for other people or judges to write
their laws.

Indeed, we are forewarned SB1 was just a first draft, tossed to the courts for further editing and review. Beware public unions and bloggers. Much more to come.

Representing
Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Shapiro’s argument today included the scrutiny
of the words “of which,” a kind of squirmy semantical gymnastics that might
have made even a culpable Bill Clinton flinch.

Shapiro: “Now after the clause has established
public pensions are an enforceable contractual relationship, the clause says
the benefits of that contractual relationship shall not be diminished or
impaired…

“But the diminishment and impair language
simply cannot bear that weight.First,
the diminishment and impair language refers back to the enforceable contractual
relationship.It says that the, the, the
public pensions are enforceable contractual relationships the benefits of which shall not be diminished or
impaired.It does not say that public
pension benefits shall not be diminished or impaired.”

In fact, most
dictionaries and reference texts indicate that the use of the relative pronoun
“of which” indicates an emphasis upon the preceding noun – in this case, benefits.

Thus, more
than simply public pensions, “of which” indicates the enforceability of the
benefits themselves – COLA, etc.

Beyond this,
Shapiro’s arguments include many of the hints and predictions offered by
Representative Nekritz in earlier interviews and communications.The Pension Clause cannot be absolute,
regardless of its placement as unique and away from the Contracts section of
the Illinois Constitution as a protection.The General Assembly wants to return to some other way to short shrift
pensioners after receiving some illumination form the courts as to what they
may “diminish and impair” and what they may not. Drafters of the Illinois
Constitution of 1970 did not follow the kind of requirments we’d want, although
their intent to enforce an annual payment is clear and implied (DeVito).

And, even
though the Office of the Attorney General characterizes the argument by the
public unions and IRTA as a wicked attempt to scare, they also admonish that
this kind of pension protection “would tie the state’s hands when its need to
act is most pressing.We cannot
emphasize enough that plaintiffs’ absolutist reading of the pension clause has
effects that go far beyond this case.”

Consequently,
Justice Thomas’ concern that the General Assembly could indeed create such
another crisis and request another consideration of necessary Police Powers in
order to avoid or renege on payments owed under contractual arrangement.“Aren’t we giving the state the power to
modify its contractual obligations whenever it wants?”

Shapiro argues
that the Pension Clause should not be read as a mathematical formula.

I agree.It is not that at all.With our paying our share into Illinois’
promised pension systems, with our paying into Illinois’ pension system without
the promise or safety of Social Security, with our having retired based upon
those promises…it is a moral
formula.

“Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State… shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired” (Constitution of the State of Illinois, Article XIII, Section 5. Pension and Retirement Rights).

It does not require intuitive or a priori thinking to justify or verify this claim because we have learned the English language and the rules governing its use. We know what these words mean in relation to written, verbal, historical and cultural contexts.

Lexical definitions, denotations and connotations of the words “diminishment” and “impairment” are unequivocal. It is not necessary to break down these words into simple constituent parts unless, of course, we simply misunderstand them because of stupidity, carelessness, intentionality or maliciousness. The plain words of the Pension Protection Clause are intelligible.

We cannot mistake the meaning of words such as “shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired” because we understand and speak the English language. If words in our State Constitution are to refer or mean anything, they must be commonly understood and accepted as they have been for decades. Moreover, if words are to refer to anything, they must also be understood through their use, role, employment and past agreements.

So, The acolytes for the 1% are relentless in their pursuit to diminish pension benefits for employees who receive no Social Security. None, Zip, Nada. I wonder if any of the drafters and voters for SB1 even remember when they first sold out. Few pensioners are living in luxury on their teacher or state pensions.

Conversely, teachers have to accumulate a maximum amount of service years and educational requirements to receive top-tier benefits. This is without an additional Social Security kicker. Even if they had work previously in the private sector or held a second job, it isn't a windfall of additional monies for the rest of their days.That's if they qualify for Social Security Retirement Benefits.

Why are these scumbags myopic in their pursuit to destroy peoples lives based on their own mismanagement of the pension fund? They are evil, mean and malicious people who will stop at nothing top get what they want or the slang definition of the word Bitch.

About Me

I am a retiree, political activist, social advocate and community volunteer. I taught at Lyons Township High School in LaGrange for 34 years in the Language Arts classroom and worked as an administrator for several years. My current avocations include various community outreach and assistance programs. Having benefitted from employment in a collegial, reflective teaching environment that encouraged dedication and professionalism, I continue to seek the promotion of education at all levels as a long-term effort combining talent, perseverance, commitment, and constant professional growth - not a blind adherence to a business model of measured production.

Copyrights & Fair Use

This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of issues vital to a democracy. I believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law.